Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and ‘Soccernomics’

By Jack Bell November 2, 2009 1:12 pmNovember 2, 2009 1:12 pm

In their new book “Soccernomics,” to be published in the United States on Tuesday, the author Simon Kuper and the economist Stefan Szymanski do for soccer what “Moneyball” did for baseball. It puts the game under an analytical microscrope using statistics, economics, psychology and intuition to try and transform a dogmatic sport.

“The heart of the matter,” Kuper said in a telephone interview from his home in Paris, “is that the thinking in soccer is outdated, backward and tradition-based. It needs a fresh look based on data. There’s a new global map, with countries like the U.S. and Japan already rising. And they will continue to rise at the expense of Europe as knowledge gets disbursed. And it’s happening very quickly.”

One of the most-maligned national teams often beset by news media hysteria that has actually punched a bit above its weight the past 20 years: England.

The domestic dominance of Lyon, a club that previously had limited success playing in a provincial French city, found stability and success not with short-term coaches, but with a long-term sporting director, Bernard Lacombe.

Avoid the urge to acquire players after big international tournaments because you are likely to overpay.

After studying penalty-kick tendencies on video, a researcher correctly predicted where and how Chelsea players would take their penalties during the 2008 Champions League final, won in a shootout by Manchester United in Moscow.

“Of course the specifics are different than baseball, where there is more data, but what Bill James does for me is to look at sports from the outside,” Kuper said. “The importance of data in soccer has been underestimated. You need to get rid of the mystique and look at it in a cold way. There’s a reason the Oakland A’s don’t let their managers make picks in the amateur draft. The coach/manager is a middle manager, not concerned with the long term.”

Perhaps the authors’ most contentious assertion is that the balance of power in global soccer is about to change because of three factors — population, wealth and experience. And that, Kuper said, means that countries like the United States, China and even India have the potential to be among the sport’s elite.

“The 2002 World Cup was revolutionary,” Kuper said. “South Korea and Turkey in the semifinals, the U.S. within a missed hand-ball call of getting to the semis. The Europeans’ home ground was taken away. The U.S. did well in the Confederations Cup. But for all the predictions about the rise of Africa, that’s not likely. Income, population and experience. Africa is nowhere on the first two and it’s only one thing to go and hire a coach. Poverty stops them.”

“The U.S., China and India are shooting up in income and population, they may have little experience, in terms of coaching, but they can get it quickly,” Kuper said. “That’s one reason I think the U.S. has not done better. Some people take the view that the U.S. needs an American coach. I don’t think that’s correct. The best coaching week in and week out is in Western Europe, and the U.S. needs to adopt the best practices. And if you want to win, send all your best players to play in Europe and hire all your coaches from Europe.”

I consistently argue that soccer needs to be transformed in the US through data/stats. This gives the media something to talk about and fans something to latch on to. The comparison to baseball is completely correct. Glad to see this book coming out, I’ll definitely give it a read.

interesting. but not a whole lot new here. Some of it i think we, the footballing fans, have been clamoring for some time but i think the system is slow to change.
Some would question though on what grounds is he basing the US requirements of a coach? Does he have any scientific data to back up the fact that a more experienced EU coach would be more successful even with the difference in culture and the US approach to the sport? or did he just pull that opinion out of thin air?
In regards to sending players abroad, if the US is a rising nation, i guess the authors need to clarify that in terms of TV consumption(watching EU games on TV) as opposed to watching it live. (see declining attendance of MLS with the exceptions of Seattle and Toronto).
But i hope that someday someone would wise up and realized that there is a lot of capital and revenue being left off the table by not bringing the more experienced competition here and keeping our players locally.

The “send all your best players to Europe and get all your coaches from there” is a line thats been echoed on here many many times. But there has to be a corralation between not just population size but also sport popularity.

If all of the US superstars play in Europe who will the young players here want to emulate? Its essential to have a superstar here, I feel that even above population size an American Pele would do more for the game than having Ancelotti coach the Red Bulls.

Perhaps the reason England punches above its weight class is that young people there want to be famous footballers.

Just 2 superstars from different teams on Sportscenter every other day would do wonders.

“The 2002 World Cup was revolutionary,” Kuper said. “South Korea and Turkey in the semifinals, the U.S. within a missed hand-ball call of getting to the semis. The Europeans’ home ground was taken away. The U.S. did well in the Confederations Cup. But for all the predictions about the rise of Africa, that’s not likely.”

While I am a fan of Kuper’s other books, I find it hard to believe that he truly thinks that the United States, Japan, India, or China will one day develop into footballing powers on par with a Brazil or Italy. Money and statistics are only part of the story. Furthermore, to dismiss the future potential of African countries is absolutely ridiculous. A case in point is the impoverished nation of the Ivory Coast that can field Didier Drogba, Yaya Touré, Emmanuel Eboué, and Salomon Kalou. I would not be surprised if the team makes it to at least the semifinals this summer in South Africa.

P.S. Let’s also not forget how some extremely dubious refereeing in their matches with Italy and Spain allowed South Korea to advance to the semi-finals in the 2002 World Cup.

Be careful how you throw around the “Moneyball” concept. Intangibles essential to winning matches & championships, such as mental toughness, can’t be quantified.

What our American soccer talent needs to develop is passing & ballhandling and the ability to constantly read the game as it transpires & make adjustments on the fly. They also have to cut down on their addiction to try to outsprint their opponents downfield and improve their ball possession skills. More aspects that are unquantifiable.

As for sending our most talented players to Europe, what are the benefits if they end up languishing on the bench?

…“ The best coaching week in and week out is in Western Europe, and the U.S. needs to adopt the best practices. And if you want to win, send all your best players to play in Europe and hire all your coaches from Europe. ”

Only Czechoslovakia 1934 – 1962, and Hungary 1938 – 1954 made to the final match. No eastern european country has won it.

Eastern Europe hasn’t produced a world champion. So that eastern european soccer will teach a thing, seems too optimistic.

I think the US should learn from the best, and that is right here in the continent. Also, americans shouldn’t be shy when importing ideas or strategies in order to improve and win a world cup.

Why import a coach? Better have americans working at places where something can be learned. I don’t think these places are in eastern europe…

Not having read the book (not yet published at the time of writing) it’s difficult to be certain but I don’t think there is anything here other than the truths that are common parlance in the “old world” order. Longevity in management is already recognised as the route to sustained success and the statistics usually only tend to mislead the casual observer, blinding them to the small but critical differences that really decide how the spoils are distributed at the end of each season.

However, looking at some of the specifics mentioned and assuming they’ve been correctly attributed:

“The country that loves soccer the most: Norway.”
On what basis? Number of players/clubs/televised games shown per hour/per head of population? Spurious at best for a measurement of “love” for the game. How does this lovomoter work and is it any use in the sphere of marital relations, it could be most helpful if it actually existed in the real world?

“One of the most-maligned national teams often beset by news media hysteria that has actually punched a bit above its weight the past 20 years: England.”
In terms of global economics, tradition and professional associations I would say that England would expect to finish in the top eight teams in the world, in line with their FIFA ranking over much of the same period. Therefore they achieved what they deserved, no more, no less.

“The domestic dominance of Lyon, a club that previously had limited success playing in a provincial French city, found stability and success not with short-term coaches, but with a long-term sporting director, Bernard Lacombe.”
Lyon surrendered their title in the last campaign, their dominance of domestic competition is not unprecedented and did not translate to a similar upturn in fortunes in the wider and more lucrative European competitions for them or other French teams.

“When it comes to acquiring players, buy low (as Lyon did with Michael Essien and Karem Benzema; and Nottingham Forest did with Roy Keane) and sell high.”
Roy Keane? He’s retired from playing. Essien’s been at Chelsea for 3 years, Benzema’s only just gone to Madrid for a large fee and has yet to make an impact (his transfer follows a Euro campaign and contradicts the very next point to be made). Just how out of date is the information being used by the authors (they’ve completely ignored the 2006 World Cup, referring instead to the 2002 competition, mainly because the more contemporary one doesn’t support their case at all)? At club level, why not try Arsenal’s policy in recent years if you want to look at a frugal and successful system at work. The real story here is why players are bought at all if they can be trained from youths, which seems to be a main thrust of the work under discussion? There is real confusion here.

“Avoid the urge to acquire players after big international tournaments because you are likely to overpay.”
D’oh, I see there is a Ministry for the blindingly obvious in the USA (see also Benzema above).

“After studying penalty-kick tendencies on video, a researcher correctly predicted where and how Chelsea players would take their penalties during the 2008 Champions League final, won in a shootout by Manchester United in Moscow.”
Absolute rubbish, John Terry slipped at the vital moment, missed the goal from his spot kick and handed the mancs the opportunity to win whilst in sudden death and only after full time, extra time and all the regulation penalties had been taken. No-one predicted that and anyone who says they did should produce a copy of their winning betting slip or shut up.

Basically, the low scoring slim margins required to compete at the highest levels in world football mean that the mass of statistics indicate very little on the one off occasions that decide these competitions. Yes, favourites mostly win but, not always and just betting on favourites will be a losing strategy over the longer term (both Brazil and Germany failed to win competitions on home soil). The comparison between games on a statistical basis is not well made at all as scoring in football and baseball are nearly as wide apart as cricket and gridiron in this regard.

Anyone buying this book is being mugged, as I don’t even think it sounds like a useful bluffers guide and is based on out of date information. The overall approach has been tried before in England, most notably the rise and fall of Wimbledon FC and the managerial career of Graham Taylor, with little success for the teams involved. In fact the only thing I would agree with that I have read here is that going forward developing nations will have a greater impact on the world game. Once again I must quote a great American thinker, d’oh. Even this could be lazy and complacent thinking as in England the heyday of the game was in the period of greatest financial strife (20-30’s) when the English FA considered themselves above having to prove their worth in competition against lower ranked countries, which could partially account for their lack of trophies won overall. Also back fill the strategy against Brazilian successes and I don’t think it works; they just appreciate the beautiful game. It was a way out of poverty for the players not a means to use up leisure hours brought about by increasing affluence. Indians prefer their cricket and may never come over to see football in the same light, despite a growing economy and world influence.

All in all, save your money and don’t buy into this, the authors have missed the point by a wide margin, perhaps deliberately given the very selective use of statistics that underpin their work. If you like your football (soccer), do your own research, support your local team and believe that anything’s possible on any given day. That way you’ll start to gain a real insight, just like the rest of us. You’ve got to start somewhere and there are no short cuts. To quote one more popular philosopher, wax on, wax off.

I think American players are much maligned — it’s not our athletes. We have the raw talent, the players have the desire, and money (ultimately) is not a problem. What we lack are world-class development coaches, like Lampard’s dad, who can bring players along and world-class officials who can ensure that our game is consistent with the world game. International competition is not a good place to sort out fundamentals and the cheap hacking that’s tolerated in the American game ensures that we’ll continue to earn red cards for skill players in big competitions. Send the coaches and the refs to Europe before the players.

“In regards to sending players abroad, if the US is a rising nation, i guess the authors need to clarify that in terms of TV consumption(watching EU games on TV) as opposed to watching it live. (see declining attendance of MLS with the exceptions of Seattle and Toronto).” – Greg

Interesting, because TV ratings disagree with you. MLS consistelntly gets higher ratings than Premiership matches on ESPN. Sometimes twice as much, such as when either Beckham or Seattle are featured. Yes, MLS games are on primetime (One of the benefits of being a domestic league) but nevertheless, more eyeballs are on MLS matches in the US than those in europe and they’ve grown this year.

While attendance has gone down a few percentage points(2.5%), it’s relatively stable. While 16k doesnt seem like much, it’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s better than all the top-flight leagues in Europe outside of Spain, England, Italy, Holland, Germany and France.
It’s better than Scotland, while I realize their population is lower but their league is also over a hundred years old and it doesn’t have to compete with any other sports like we do with the NBA, NFL and MLB.

So it’s not as bleak as people think and I don’t think we’ve hit the ceiling of soccer’s growth in this country. If MLS can improve their salary cap and get better players from abroad the quality of the league can improve, I think I can draw even more viewers.

Not having read the book , I hesitate to criticize. But all the best coaches are in Europe? Then why have they failed here? (See the Metrostars). Even if you accept the inferiority of the American coach, seems silly to ignore Latin America.

My own take on the idea that “all the best coaches are in Europe”., is that it’s not necessarily the coaches as individuals, but the coaching SYSTEMS. As long as the U.S. remains stuck with the fragmented developmental systems we currently have (Youth soccer; the NCAA; and disunited MLS team philosophies), as well as relying on dogmatic coaches who over-emphasize their own “systems” at the expense of individual player skills and creativity, the U.S. will remain a second tier power.

And while use of statistics can be helpful, over-reliance on them can be fatal. As several posters have already noted, it’s almost impossible to quantify “winners”. Too often players who are consitently on winning teams are overlooked by the players with flashier resumes or film clips who by themselves seldom make teams into winners. A rare exception to this was Michael Jordan who possessed both uncanny skill and an unquenchable drive to win. As a coach who has selected players in several different sports the primary “statistic” I used was speed/quickness — the old axiom “You can’t coach speed” is still true. The other criteria I used was my observation of much drive (i.e “will to win”) the player had.

As a further argument against reliance on pure numbers, I would point to the NY Yankees. In their title years of 98 – 2001 they did not have the statistically best player at every position: Paul O’Neill, Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez were not the best players based on numbers at their position, but they all shared an incredible drive to win, including a willingenss to sacrificce their individual statistics for the good of the team. From 2002 – 2008 they spent huge sums on “superstars” yet didn’t achieve the same success because they lacked these “selfless winners”.

Freddy Adu is a prime example of U.S. development pitfalls. Talented and having a football brain was wasted by rushing an uncut diamond to market. Ever wonder how NYRB Juan Pablo Angel’s talents are wasted; look what’s around him. As for the argument that top notch Euro-coaches are needed to lift the U.S. performance level; don’t rush to conclusions, these guys work with proven talent and are not in the developmental phase.

“The best coaching week in and week out is in Western Europe, ”
and what about the rest of the world??
And about the statistics, the media in Brasil are so annoiyng with statistics, i think the same happens with our coaches, and i dont think is any different in Europe.
About US soccer, it has a lot of potencial, but needs to improve the youth soccer so it can creat world class players.
I dont know how popular this sport is in america, but it have to compete with at least other 3 sports, so i think it will take time to develop, but money is what make this sport grow nowdays, and i think you guys don’t have any shortage of that.

Looking forward to the first literary critique of the closed league single entity model that debilitates our soccer. Hope we find one in here somewhere!

The population argument has been germane since the game broke out of England in the twentieth century. A closer examination reveals that every top national team has behind it an open and accessible league featuring promotion and relegation – no the stunted model we run. Japan adopted the model in 1990 (while keeping the franchise model for baseball) and the game took off.

Here, we’re trapped in closed league dogma. Many US club soccer supporters are wallowing in an inferiority complex – and MLS takes full advantage. They believe the game too fragile for an open league. Fact is, there are no examples of national open leagues that expired in bankruptcy or folded. Meanwhile, in the US alone, at least half a dozen attempts at closed leagues have expired, taking dozens of storied clubs down with them.

Stop coddling billionaire owners. Believe in the game. Support the opening of our leagues.

In response to the buying low, selling high idea, NYT Ed. wrote “Because it seems to happen all so seldom.”

Huh? Buying low and buying high occur at exactly the same rate! Kind of like conservation of mass. There is a buyer, and a seller. One pays too much (or too little), the other gets too little (or too much).

Your view is probably skewed because you might just follow the big clubs who have the means to write the big checks. But consider the entire footballing world as a whole and things balance out.

I’ve seen some comments here by “— soccerreform.us”, and look’s like there’s a difference in the mls league, its a “closed franchise league with no promotion/relegation”, could you guys make a post explaining how that works? And why all the clubs use adidas? How the mls “works”.

NYT Ed.–Unlike other leagues around the world (and like ALL sports leagues in the U.S.) there is no provision for promotion/relegation (at present) in Major League Soccer. Will it ever happen? Don’t hold your breath. M.L.S. is a so-called single-entity league, in that the league owns all clubs and player contracts, and teams must operate within a set salary budget. As for Adidas, the league signed a sponsorship deal with the company that makes it the sole uniform provider for all the league’s teams … no separate uniform deals by club. Hope that helps.

What's Next

About

Goal, The New York Times soccer blog, will report on news and features from the world of soccer and around the Web. Times editors and reporters will follow international tournaments and provide analysis of games. There will be interviews with players, coaches and notable soccer fans, as well as a weekly blog column by Red Bulls forward Jozy Altidore. Readers can discuss Major League Soccer, foreign leagues and other issues with fellow soccer fans.